It is conventionally known that phthalocyanine derivatives can be used as a deodorizer for deodorizing bad smell in living atmospheres. The deodorizing process by using phthalocyaninepolycarboxylic acid and phthalocyaninepolysulfonic acid, for example, is noticed as an artificial enzymatic oxidation deodorizing process, and is partially put into practice.
These phthalocyanine derivatives show excellent deodorizing ability for an ammonia odor (an amine-origin odor) and a mercaptan odor (a sulfur-origin odor), however, show insufficient deodorizing ability for an aldehyde-origin odor which is one of main components of a tobacco odor. It has been reported that ironphthalocyanine shows relatively good deodorizing ability. However, the deodorizing ability is insufficient for the aldehyde-origin odor, and is not practical as a deodorizer.
Further, ironphthalocyanine shows poor deodorizing ability for a sulfur-origin odor by comparison with cobaltphthalocyanine, and has poor stability in an alkali solution which is used for depositing it on a support. The deodorizing ability of the ironphthalocyanine, therefore, does not continue for a long period.
Japanese Patent Kokai Publication No. 63355/1981 discloses an ironphthalocyanine derivative, and the like obtained by the urea method, and it is described that the phthalocyanine derivative has deodorizing ability for an aldehyde-origin odor. However, the deodorizing ability thereof is not sufficient.
This kind of metallophthalocyanine is generally produced by the urea method (the Weilar method, or the phthalic anhydride liquid phase method, in other words), phthalonitrile method, and the like. The phthalonitrile method uses phthalonitriles as a raw material, and has the merits that reaction time is relatively short and yield is excellent. However, the phthalonitriles used as a raw material are expensive, and consequently the production cost becomes high. Further, it is pointed out that the phthalonitriles are toxic and, handling thereof requires attention from the view point of safety.
On the other hand, the urea method, particularly the phthalic anhydride liquid phase method is a method in which a phthalic acid derivative (for example, trimellitic anhydride), urea, a metallizing agent, and a catalyst are heated in a solvent. The raw materials used in the urea method are relatively inexpensive and have low toxicity, therefore, the urea method is low-cost and safe. However, a hydrophobic organic solvent such as nitrobenzene and trichlorobenzene is usually used as a solvent. It is therefore necessary to distill, remove, and recover the solvent from a reaction mixture after completion of the reaction.
When a solvent is distilled off from a reaction mixture, the reaction mixture is kept at high temperature under reduced pressure so that the mixture does not bump. This step takes a lot of time and labor, especially when the scale of the reaction becomes large. Therefore, the urea method has a demerit that the production process is complicated, especially upon mass production. Further, the hydrophobic organic solvents are harmful to the human body and to the environment, and handling thereof requires attention from the view point of safety.
The phthalic anhydride solid phase method does not use an organic solvent as a reaction solvent, therefore, it does not require labor for separating and recovering the organic solvent. However, the yield of this method is low, and the method is not suitable for mass production.